I just finished listening to Stephen Fox's Wolf of the Deep: Raphael Semmes and the Notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama. Alabama is the most successful commerce-raider in history. In 2 years, Semmes captured (and almost always burned, after removing the crew) 65 Union merchant vessels. He, with slight help from other Confederate vessels, badly disrupted Union commerce. When Alabama was sunk, the newspapers printed a list of 900 vessels that had been sold by U.S. owners. They were sold because the insurance, and risk of encountering Alabama, was so great they were too expensive to operate.
Strangely, the thing that caught my notice was in the closing pages. Fox referred to Alabama as the most historic Naval vessel of the war. Of course, my immediate reaction was "Nuh-uh! Monitor and Merrimac!" (or CSS Virginia, if you're a stickler). The ironclads clearly foreshadowed battleship development, with armor, gun turrets, steam-only propulsion, etc. Thing is, battleships barely survived WWI. They certainly didn't survive even the opening of WWII. (You might look at the fates of Bismarck and HMS Prince of Wales, -- not to mention Pearl Harbor.) In that light, the ironclads were evolutionary, but the lineage ultimately proved a dead-end.
Alabama attacked (almost entirely) merchant shipping. She operated on long-duration cruise, years between returning home. Contrary to usual practice of the day, she burned her prizes rather than sell them. (No nation recognized the Confederate States of America, so Semmes had no one to sell to.) Her modus operandi was speed, closing on her victims so fast they couldn't escape. She was well-armed, but not armored. I think she was the fore-runner of the U-boat. They, too, just destroyed their prizes. (In their case, no room for prisoners and it's very difficult to bring a boat alongside the rounded hull of a submarine.) U-boats weren't particularly fast, but fast isn't necessary if one can simply materialize next to the target vessel. Like Alabama, they were built without armor, but with perfectly adequate weaponry. They and Alabama fulfilled the same function. Perhaps Fox's statement wasn't hyperbole, after all.
Strangely, the thing that caught my notice was in the closing pages. Fox referred to Alabama as the most historic Naval vessel of the war. Of course, my immediate reaction was "Nuh-uh! Monitor and Merrimac!" (or CSS Virginia, if you're a stickler). The ironclads clearly foreshadowed battleship development, with armor, gun turrets, steam-only propulsion, etc. Thing is, battleships barely survived WWI. They certainly didn't survive even the opening of WWII. (You might look at the fates of Bismarck and HMS Prince of Wales, -- not to mention Pearl Harbor.) In that light, the ironclads were evolutionary, but the lineage ultimately proved a dead-end.
Alabama attacked (almost entirely) merchant shipping. She operated on long-duration cruise, years between returning home. Contrary to usual practice of the day, she burned her prizes rather than sell them. (No nation recognized the Confederate States of America, so Semmes had no one to sell to.) Her modus operandi was speed, closing on her victims so fast they couldn't escape. She was well-armed, but not armored. I think she was the fore-runner of the U-boat. They, too, just destroyed their prizes. (In their case, no room for prisoners and it's very difficult to bring a boat alongside the rounded hull of a submarine.) U-boats weren't particularly fast, but fast isn't necessary if one can simply materialize next to the target vessel. Like Alabama, they were built without armor, but with perfectly adequate weaponry. They and Alabama fulfilled the same function. Perhaps Fox's statement wasn't hyperbole, after all.
Hey! Cool!
Blogging looks great on ya.
It's going to be nice to have a place I can refer myself to for your audio book reviews.